This order dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR alleging misappropriation of paddy funds. The court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is an exception, not a rule, and quashing would prejudge the investigation into the petitioner's alleged innocence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(Cr.) No. 213 of 2016
----Petitioner
Versus
Page No.2
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Janak Ram Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order On Board
01/03/2017
Page No.3
accused has misappropriated various paddy and usurped the amount of Rs.1,74,46,707/- was misappropriated. It appears that after registration of the FIR, instant writ petition has been filed, wherein the petitioner wants to shift the burden stating that other persons are also liable for misappropriation and petitioner has not misappropriated the same as he was only administrator of the agency which procured the paddy.
“8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would
Page No.4
govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “ quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to
Page No.5
look in to the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.”
Sd/(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge
Balram
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR for misappropriation of paddy funds could be allowed at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. And others v. Md. Sharaful Haque and othersReferred¶36
M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. And others v. Md. Sharaful Haque and others (AIR 2005 SC 9) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan @ Mohan Singh Jangde
State Of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
